I am a Senior Political Contributor at Forbes and the official 'token lefty,' as the title of the page suggests. However, writing from the 'left of center' should not be confused with writing for the left as I often annoy progressives just as much as I upset conservative thinkers. In addition to the pages of Forbes.com, you can find me every Saturday morning on your TV arguing with my more conservative colleagues on "Forbes on Fox" on the Fox News Network and at various other times during the week serving as a liberal talking head on other Fox News and Fox Business Network shows. I also serve as a Democratic strategist with Mercury Public Affairs.

'Right-to-Work' Laws Explained, Debunked And Demystified

One of the enduring myths of legislation designed to bring ‘right-to-work’ laws to the states is the notion that these laws actually have something to do with the right to work.

They decidedly do not.

While—as we will see—the misnomer has nothing whatsoever to do with granting anyone a right to get work or protecting those who have a job from losing it, this “misunderstanding-by-design” has not prevented the Michigan legislature from sending two bills to the desk of Governor Rick Snyder.—legislation that, upon execution, will turn Michigan into the 24th state to adopt right-to-work laws.

Accordingly, this seems an appropriate moment to set the record straight on what these laws are, in actuality, intended to achieve.

Let’s begin by noting that many Americans continue to believe that unionism is based around the concept of the ‘closed shop’ —an agreement between an employer and the union representing the employer’s workers requiring that the employer hire only labor union members or, if nonmembers are employed, they must become a member of the union within a stated period of time or lose their job.

Not true.

The Taft-Hartley Act, passed in 1947, which amended the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, did away with the “closed shop” era in America during which an employee—who either resisted joining the union or lost his union membership as a result of failing to pay dues or some other violation—was required to be dismissed by the employer as a result of the worker losing, or never accomplishing, union member status.

But there was much more to this law.

The Taft-Hartley Act additionally required that employment agreements collectively bargained for to benefit union members would also be required to inure to the complete benefit of non-member employees, even though these employees elect not to join the union.

Already knew all of that? Excellent.

But did you know that Taft-Hartley further requires that the union be additionally obligated to provide non-members’ with virtually all the benefits of union membership even if that worker elects not to become a card-carrying union member?

By way of example, if a non-member employee is fired for a reason that the employee believes to constitute a wrongful termination, the union is obligated to represent the rights of that employee in the identical fashion as it would represent a union member improperly terminated. So rock solid is this obligation that should the non-union member employee be displeased with the quality of the fight the union has put forth on his or her behalf, that non-union member has the right to sue the union for failing to prosecute as good a defense as would be expected by a wrongfully terminated union member.

Given the fact that Taft-Hartley was providing non-union members with most all the benefits of membership without having to join up, the Republican controlled Congress that passed the law —a law specifically designed to curb union power in America— believed it would be unfair for non-member workers to gain all these goodies at no charge while members were obligated to pay dues for the very same services the union provided.

To compensate for this, Taft-Hartley required that, while nobody could be forced to join the union, non-members would be required to pay dues to the union as if they were members. These are called “agency fees”—the equivalent of union dues when paid by a non union-member.

Which brings us to myth number 2….

Non-union members, who are required to pay the union dues even when not a member, are—as a result of paying these dues—being forced to contribute to the political activities of the union despite their disagreement with the political goals the union may choose to pursue.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

Bottom line is that “right to work” laws are a political contrivance designed to take away the dollar of support for the unions. Thanks to research “right to work” laws are a smoke and mirrors way of contriving the illusion of strength and benefit for employers. If THIS message and learning can be imputed to the employee successfully the dollar of support has a multiplier effect just as lending in the banking system.

I see from some of these comments why “Right to Work” legislation seems to be popular among non-union employees. There is massive ignorance about economics, and, frankly, logic. There is simply no rationale support for the notion that wages will increase for non-union workers if they decrease for union workers. Not to sound mean, but what do “dr” and “phd” stand for?

Another ignorant liberal posting stories that fulfill the marxist workers paradise dream. Rick, you sit here & tell us that the right to work is invalid. But as usual, you miss that America is at the painful end of a communist, collectivist utopia welfare, government union despotism dominated oblivion.

Here we are printing money, borrowing money, & why Rick? Because your marxist unions take everything that they want. After decades of indoctrinating, & culturally dumbing, creating a government power beyond the grasp of the people, after your liberal ideology has become so big, that it is about to consume us all with devaluing our money & debt, you miss the entire point.

You focus on how the right to work aint all that great. How about doing a story on the cost of government unions Rick? No, you’d rather die & go to hell, & bring your wife & little girl into eternal damnation as well than admit the truth about what liberalism is.

I’ve got news for you buddy. You still have to go to hell for protecting them.

Not really sure how you feel about the author? Can you be more specific? And if you are not sure of my pending reply to you, here it is in clear language. “You seem to be one hateful person who has an anger management problem who needs help!” Good Luck to you and if you have a family, to them also!

I’ve got news for you. You can get as crazy as you want with me however when your bring my wife and children into it in so threatening a manner you are walking a very dangerous line that will earn you more trouble than you may be bargaining for. Your comment is being turned over to the appropriate authorities.

Rick, I like you, will discuss anything with anyone, provided it is all based on opinions of ideas, not personal attacks. That guy stepped over the line and I had to say something. Otherwise, have enjoyed ALL the comments, even those I fervently disagree with!! Thanks for the opportunity to respond to your post!

Rick, Excellant comments. Need your help. I am not a large investor, but I bought a sizeable stake in a corporation (I don’t want to give a name). I went the shareholder meeting to voice my opposition to a certain policy. I was told that the corporate directors had already voted. Not to be undone, I asked that I receive the dividends that I should’ve gotten, but for the retaining of earnings that the corporation chose. Again, same response. Can I use this Right to Work thingy? Sure seems unfair that I have to live with the decisions of the Board of Directors. Especially, when corporations are people like me. Do you have Gov. Snyder’s number? He seems concerned about the little guy.